[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by sagarpadaki

Sulur to Melbourne is a 11 hour flight for a Widebody commercial airliner. Wonder how fast the Su30's would have covered this distance. I assume they would not be going supersonic ?

I’m guessing no. I’m no expert but fighter jets only go supersonic during some engagement or interception, else they would quickly use up all their fuel using afterburners (though some fighters have supercruise capability). Moreover for long haul flights like this one, they have to follow the tanker aircraft.

[robby0707]

Originally Posted by sagarpadaki

Sulur to Melbourne is a 11 hour flight for a Widebody commercial airliner. Wonder how fast the Su30's would have covered this distance. I assume they would not be going supersonic ?

On a ferry flight, fighter jets travel at almost the same speeds as a commercial airliner. Going supersonic is not practical as it uses too much fuel.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

I’m guessing no. I’m no expert but fighter jets only go supersonic during some engagement or interception, else they would quickly use up all their fuel using afterburners (though some fighters have supercruise capability). Moreover for long haul flights like this one, they have to follow the tanker aircraft.

Originally Posted by robby0707

On a ferry flight, fighter jets travel at almost the same speeds as a commercial airliner. Going supersonic is not practical as it uses too much fuel.

Anorak fact: The Concorde used less fuel as it went supersonic. At sub sonic speed it was hugely fuel inefficient. The slower and lower the worse it got. Concorde, in stark contrasts to just about all fighters (if not all?) did not use afterburners/Superheat when it cruised supersonically. A truly remarkable engineering feat in those days. And even today not easily matched.

The poor slow speed fuel efficiency was largely caused by the wing design. As it slowed down the angle of attack had to increase to generate sufficient lift, so you pull up the nose, but that causes increased drag.

Concorde had (as most delta wing aircraft) a huge angle of attack in landing configuration. Nose high up, so they had to make it moveable so the pilots could actually see the runway under such a steep angle. It burned a phenomenal amount of fuel during those last 15-20 miles to touch down, as it had to reduce it speed and thus increase angle of attack and thus drag.

Jeroen

[robby0707]

Originally Posted by Jeroen

Anorak fact: The Concorde used less fuel as it went supersonic. At sub sonic speed it was hugely fuel inefficient. The slower and lower the worse it got. Concorde, in stark contrasts to just about all fighters (if not all?) did not use afterburners/Superheat when it cruised supersonically. A truly remarkable engineering feat in those days. And even today not easily matched.

The poor slow speed fuel efficiency was largely caused by the wing design. As it slowed down the angle of attack had to increase to generate sufficient lift, so you pull up the nose, but that causes increased drag.

Concorde had (as most delta wing aircraft) a huge angle of attack in landing configuration. Nose high up, so they had to make it moveable so the pilots could actually see the runway under such a steep angle. It burned a phenomenal amount of fuel during those last 15-20 miles to touch down, as it had to reduce it speed and thus increase angle of attack and thus drag.

Jeroen

As a matter of fact, there is a mid point of speed below which all aircraft uses more fuel. This is again because of the angle of attack. An aircraft in straight and level unaccelerated flight has four forces acting on it: gravity, countered by lift, and drag, countered by thrust. The lift produced by an aircraft is directly proportional to the speed and the angle of attack and therefore, as the speed reduces, the angle of attack(alpha) has to increase to maintain lift. This in turn increases the drag( this drag is called the lift induced drag) and thrust requirement increases. However, if the speed increases too much, the normal drag (form drag ) increases. So there is a mid point speed for all aircraft where in the combination of both these drags is minimum and is most efficient for cruising.

[dragracer567]

This is a good one.

The IAF is now looking at leasing AWACs to mitigate the shortfall it is facing. This is because the IAF is stuck with just 5 AWACs - 3 Israeli ones mounted on IL-76s and 2 indigenous Netras mounted on Embraers. For comparison, Pakistan which is a much smaller force has 12 AWACs aircraft.

Offcourse, the IAF recently purchased some ex-IAF A321s to convert into AWACs but apparently, these will take a couple of years and the lease is to mitigate the interim shortfall. However, I am not sure which country would be ready to part with a capability as strategic as AWACs. The Russians probably won't, given that they need all the capability they have to fight the war. The Europeans including the French have very few in active service and they need these given the current situation in Europe. So, the only potential suitor left are the Americans but an AWAC is just too strategic to be lent to a non-NATO country, that too on lease! Then the question also arises if it will be a wet lease or a dry lease.

Perhaps India could try to lease a newly build 737-based one from Boeing (the one operated by Australia, Turkey etc.) but then the question arises if Boeing will be able to resell these after the lease period ends - not all countries can afford AWACs. At the end of the day, leasing an AWACs plane is not like leasing a tanker or a seaguardian drone.

[Jeroen]

Originally Posted by robby0707

As a matter of fact, there is a mid point of speed below which all aircraft uses more fuel..

True, but the shape of these curves are unique to each aircraft. And the Concorde and most delta wings it works out worse than on other wing designs.
Jeroen

[skanchan95]

IAF to kick off induction of indigenous light combat helicopter next month

NEW DELHI: The IAF will induct the first indigenous light combat helicopter (LCH), which is capable of offensive operations in the Siachen Glacier-Saltoro Ridge region and eastern Ladakh, at its Jodhpur airbase in the presence of defence minister Rajnath Singh on October 3.

The phased induction of these 5.8-tonne choppers, which are armed with 20mm turret guns, 70mm rocket systems and air-to-air missiles, will boost IAF’s capabilities against enemy infantry troops, tanks, bunkers and UAVs (unmanned aerial vehicles) in high-altitude areas as well as in other terrains.

Two LCHs, incidentally, were flight-evaluated in eastern Ladakh in 2020 amidst the still-continuing military confrontation with China there. “It was during the Kargil conflict with Pakistan in 1999 that the need for such an indigenously-developed armed helicopter with high-altitude capability was acutely felt for the first time,” an officer said.

IAF and Army require an estimated 160 LCHs in the coming years. The Cabinet Committee on Security had cleared the first contract for 15 LCHs (10 IAF and 5 Army), at an overall cost of Rs. 3,887 crore, along with infrastructure sanctions worth Rs 377 crore, in March this year.


Defence PSU Hindustan Aeronautics has produced eight of the 15 choppers till now, of which four have been “accepted” by IAF. These LCHs have 45% indigenous content by value, which will progressively increase to more than 55% for the next version, an official said.

The LCH is touted as the only attack helicopter in its weight class in the world which can land and take-off at an altitude of 5,000-metre or 16,400-feet with a considerable load of weapons and fuel.

Powered by two Shakti engines, developed with the French Safran Group, the highly-agile and manoeuvrable LCHs have advanced features like helmet-mounted sights, glass cockpits and composite airframes, and are capable of operating around-the-clock in all-weather conditions.

“The LCHs also have enhanced survivability through light-weight armour panels against 7.62mm and 12.7mm rounds, self-sealing fuel tanks, damage-tolerant main rotor blades, bullet-proof windshields and a low frontal radar cross-section,” the official said.

“Moreover, the LCHs have built-in crashworthiness of landing gear, bottom structure, crew seats and fuel tanks. For self-protection, the choppers have infra-red suppression systems, electronic warfare capabilities, and flare and chaff dispensers,” he added.

IAF, of course, has inducted 22 heavy-duty Apache attack helicopters, armed with Hellfire and Stinger missiles among other armaments, under the Rs 13,952 crore deal inked with the US in September 2015.

IAF is also integrating its Russian-origin Mi-17 V5 armed helicopters with Israeli Spike NLOS (non-line of sight) anti-tank guided missiles that can destroy ground targets around 30-km away. IAF and Army also have the weaponized versions of the indigenous Dhruv advanced light helicopters called the Rudra.

[lsjey]

A wonderful thread! I've a newbie question. I keep hearing and reading about the following indigenous helos, LCH, ALH, Dhruv, Rudra etc. But could not easily find if they are same or different. If they are different then in what way? Would really appreciate if someone posted it here. Thanks!

Regards,
lsjey

[Vkap257]

Originally Posted by lsjey

A wonderful thread! I've a newbie question. I keep hearing and reading about the following indigenous helos, LCH, ALH, Dhruv, Rudra etc. But could not easily find if they are same or different. If they are different then in what way? Would really appreciate if someone posted it here. Thanks!

Regards,
lsjey

Hello!
In simple terms, HAL produces the following helicopters-

1. ALH Dhruv - A 5 tonne class twin engined utility helicopter. 300+ already built. Currently at block 3 level of its lifecycle with many improvements and a naval variant.

2. LUH - Based on the same Dhruv platform, but of a smaller weight class of 3 tonnes, and thereby powered by 1 engine instead of 2. <5 built currently.

3. Rudra- Almost same as Dhruv, but comes with attached weapons pylons to equip it with various air-to-ground and air-to-air munitions and rockets. Around 90 Built/on order.

4. LCH - Light Combat Helicopter- A combat helicopter with same flight characteristics and shape as that of an Apache, although not as armed or dangerous as one. A deadly helicopter with tandem seating and an impressive array of weapons.

Simply put, ALH dhruv is the Base helicopter; LUH is the base helicopter but smaller and lighter; Rudra is the same base helicopter with the same shape but with some attach capabilities; LCH is also based on the Dhruv, but has more “sporty” shape to make it deadlier and more nimble handler.

All things cons, the Dhruv line of helicopters provide us with 1 serious advantage over our neighbours- Its service ceiling of 6100 metres - very crucial for an area like Ladakh and much higher than the Chinese Z10.

[dragracer567]

Originally Posted by Vkap257

2. LUH - Based on the same Dhruv platform, but of a smaller weight class of 3 tonnes, and thereby powered by 1 engine instead of 2. <5 built currently.

4. LCH - Light Combat Helicopter- A combat helicopter with same flight characteristics and shape as that of an Apache, although not as armed or dangerous as one. A deadly helicopter with tandem seating and an impressive array of weapons.

I wonder if the LUH and the LCH will be christened with a name (like Dhruv and Rudra) or if they will continue to be known through their development acronyms.

Indian aviation certainly has the most beautiful names - Dhruv, Rudra, Tejas, Marut etc. Even the imported ones have beautiful names like the Mig-29 “Baaz”, Mig-25 “Garuda”, Mi-35 “Akbar” (though the recent ones like Su-30 and Rafale didn’t get these names for some reason).

[Vkap257]

Originally Posted by dragracer567

I wonder if the LUH and the LCH will be christened with a name (like Dhruv and Rudra) or if they will continue to be known through their development acronyms.

Indian aviation certainly has the most beautiful names - Dhruv, Rudra, Tejas, Marut etc. Even the imported ones have beautiful names like the Mig-29 “Baaz”, Mig-25 “Garuda”, Mi-35 “Akbar” (though the recent ones like Su-30 and Rafale didn’t get these names for some reason).

That would be a great topic of discussion from some esteemed member of this forum someday. Would love to understand and gain insight on the naming scheme of various defensive hardware owned by our armed forces such as how and why are they named the subsequent way, who decides on the names, is it the project teams or some higher-ups in the ministry etc.

[lsjey]

Was reading this article in Bloomberg. Some the key points in the article are:

India’s air force, army, and navy can no longer import some critical weapons systems to replace aging ones, the officials said. That risks leaving India critically short of helicopters by 2026 and with a shortfall of hundreds of fighter jets by 2030, they said.

While India’s military has increased local purchases of some defense items, the country doesn’t yet produce complex platforms like diesel-electric submarines and twin-engine fighters. Plans to buy fighters from foreign manufacturers were shelved because the Modi government wants the air force to opt for indigenously made single–engine fighters, which are in short supply, as well as twin-engine fighter planes that the country doesn’t yet have in production.

The situation with the air force is particularly dire. By 2030, the Indian Air Force maybe left with less than 30 fighter squadrons, well below the 42 the military says it needs to adequately protect borders with both China and Pakistan, officials said. Between now and then, the air force will be forced to ground about half-a-dozen squadrons -- each including 16 to 18 fighter jets -- that will reach the end of their flying life, one official said.



The Bengaluru-based state-owned defense manufacturer Hindustan Aeronautics Limited can only produce eight indigenous Tejas fighters each year, officials said, or roughly half a squadron. The company plans to double manufacturing capacity by 2026, they added, but delays are possible due to supply-chain disruptions caused by Russia’s war in Ukraine.

Helicopters are another problem. The air force, army and navy still depend on light helicopters designed and developed in France more than half a century ago and inducted in the 1970s. Almost 80% of India’s fleet of choppers has already outlived their lifespan of 30 years, a defense ministry official said.
Most of the army’s fleet of single-engine choppers will have to be grounded by 2026 even though domestically made light helicopters aren’t likely to be ready before the end of 2030, one defense official said. A plan to manufacture Russian Kamov-226T helicopters hasn’t materialized yet because of disagreements over costs and the amount of indigenous components to be included.

Modi’s import substitution plans don’t take into account the fact that developing world-class weapon systems requires billions of dollars in investment and years of research, said Rahul Bedi, a New Delhi-based independent defense analyst. Moreover, even Indian defense platforms such as the light combat aircraft or tanks have roughly 50% imported components, he added.
“Make in India for defense isn’t thought through properly,” Bedi said. “It is a good slogan, beyond that there isn’t much to show as yet.”

While I respect Bloomberg for independent reporting, I keep a good degree of skepticism in accepting analysis and conclusions from any news service. I can accept facts though. They can be easily verified.

Honestly, the production capacity of HAL is low. 36 Rafales were supplied in the space of less than 2 years. HAL needs to supply LCH, LCA Tejas Mk1, Mk1A, and support other Russian origin fighters in service.

And no other private player is stepping up to be a competition to HAL.

The strategy of keeping localization low to begin with is good, but can HAL pull off this and deliver quickly. A lot is riding on the success here. HAL is talking of export orders as well.

The key question is while the order book of HAL is very good, can they execute?

Request experts here to share their views.

Note: Highlighting in the quoted section is by me.

Regards,
lsjey

[Gansan]

What happened to the proposed 100+ twin engine fighter deal? Is it dropped?

[saikarthik]

Originally Posted by Gansan

What happened to the proposed 100+ twin engine fighter deal? Is it dropped?

It's still on, but with a different name and changes to some basic requirements like the number of engines.

The exact number was 126 when it was called as the MMRCA(MRCA) - Medium-Multirole Combat Aircraft deal with twin engines. Initial contenders were Boeing F/A 18 E/F Super Hornet, Dassault Rafale, Eurofighter Typhoon, Saab JAS-39 Gripen, Mikoyan MiG-35, Lockheed Martin F-16. It was withdrawn in 2015 as there were disagreements on production in India, ToT and more. There was an interim measure of procurement of 36 Rafales from Dassault, France in fly away condition.

The deal is now renamed as Multirole Fighter Aircraft MRFA and they include even single engine fighters. Current contenders are Dassault Rafale, Boeing F/A-18 E/F, F15EX, LM F21(Single Engine), SAAB JAS-39 Gripen (Single Engine), Sukhoi Su-35 & Mig-35.

F21 & F15-EX are refresh (pun intended) of F16 and F15 C respectively but with better sensors, weapon systems. F15-EX has the best in class payload carrying capacity. Note that F21 is on just paper, not produced yet.

[Gansan]

^^ F21 and Gripen were already rejected. Pak has F16 and we won't touch anything they have. F21 is the same jet in a different garb. Gripen is nothing but Tejas, more or less. Both even use the same engine. The real contest will be between the F15, F18 and Rafale, if the deal is still on. Better to go for the Rafale for the airforce and F18 for the navy, to satisfy uncle Sam. If necessary some more Poseidon and Sea hawk needs can be "identified" to placate them, perhaps.